Public institution management performance evaluation aims to induce management efficiency and the responsible management of public institutions by evaluating their previous year's management performance and linking the evaluation results with personnel affairs of executives and bonuses for staff. In spite of the evaluation's contribution to the improvement of efficiency and productivity through competitive pressure for management innovation, several problems regarding the appropriateness of evaluation criteria, operation methods of the evaluation system, and the composition of evaluation groups, etc. were pointed out.
This report examined the composition of management evaluation groups, evaluation types, and the evaluation criteria of the public institution management performance evaluation. In particular, several cases of receiving research project orders by evaluation group members were analyzed and in-depth interview results of public institution management evaluation group members were utilized, instead of the quantitative methods used in existing research.
The evaluation results show that, with regard to the "composition of evaluation groups," there were cases where the evaluation fairness and objectivity were compromised in relation to the reception of research project orders, including a case where some management evaluation group members received excessive amounts of research projects from the public institution that he or she evaluated. Therefore, it was pointed out that clear standards on receiving research projects from public institutions should be established, as well as a system to verify whether such standards are met. Moreover, it was also pointed out that the introduction of a term system of management evaluation groups and a dedicated evaluation institution should be considered for the accumulation of evaluation capability and the reinforcement of consistency and expertise as excessive changes in the composition of management evaluation groups, as in 2013, may hinder the expertise of evaluation including through inconsistency in evaluation criteria, etc.
With regard to "target and type of management evaluation," management performance evaluation led by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance should be considered in cases of non-classified public institutions that require management supervision of the government considering their strong public character, size of assets, and scale of financial support by the government. Moreover, among management evaluation types, a more detailed categorization of evaluation type based on capacity within Public Corporation I and II was proposed, as Public Corporation II shows that public corporations of different sizes and natures are evaluated based on the same evaluation criteria. Such "capacity-based" categorization will ensure re-categorization based on the nature and size of institutions without compromising the existing categorization system and standards as it is the same method as the categorization of quasi-governmental agencies.
With regard to "evaluation criteria," designing evaluation criteria for the categories of Public Corporation I and II and fund management-based and commission-service-based quasi-governmental agencies in a way that the proportion of non-quantitative indicators is high should be considered. This would reflect the characteristics of institutions and diverse natures of projects more properly. Designing the evaluation criteria of
micro agencies in a way where the proportion of quantitative indicators, which are relatively easy to handle, is high to relieve their burden should also be considered. Furthermore, in measuring financial performance indicators, it is not appropriate to interpret the increase of debt of public institutions caused by government projects based on the government's policy decisions in the same way as management failure or lax management. However, it was identified that as there are no explicit regulations on the definition and scope of government policy projects conducted by public corporations, there are many cases where management evaluation is conducted on government policy projects without consistent standards. Therefore, it is necessary to consider factors based on government policy projects. To this end, an improvement plan with a clear concept and scope of government policy projects and an accurate verification of calculations in segment accounting of public institutions were proposed.
Regarding "other system operations," as an evaluation system for a one-year cycle may induce public institutions to focus more on short-term performance instead of mid-/long-term objectives, the current evaluation cycle and reporting cycle (1 year) should be maintained and performance indicators to evaluate mid-/long-term performance should be added in a complementary manner. Moreover, as it was identified that there is a heavy burden on the relevant divisions of the evaluated institution including business paralysis due to an increased workload or organizational conflicts during the evaluation preparation period, introducing a standard template by developing a manual on reporting online including through an "
All Public Information in One" or building an electronic evaluation system for public institutions by referring to the integrated electronic evaluation system currently used in government performance evaluation should be considered. Moreover, it is desirable to minimize the revision of the manual as much as possible unless it is inevitable due to the designation of a new public institution or changes in the external economic environment, as it is not desirable in terms protecting credibility and may lower the acceptance of the evaluation by the evaluated institution if the government execution efforts are evaluated based on the manual revised at the end of the year just before evaluation and evaluation results are linked with bonuses, etc.
This report examined the composition of management evaluation groups, evaluation types, and the evaluation criteria of the public institution management performance evaluation. In particular, several cases of receiving research project orders by evaluation group members were analyzed and in-depth interview results of public institution management evaluation group members were utilized, instead of the quantitative methods used in existing research.
The evaluation results show that, with regard to the "composition of evaluation groups," there were cases where the evaluation fairness and objectivity were compromised in relation to the reception of research project orders, including a case where some management evaluation group members received excessive amounts of research projects from the public institution that he or she evaluated. Therefore, it was pointed out that clear standards on receiving research projects from public institutions should be established, as well as a system to verify whether such standards are met. Moreover, it was also pointed out that the introduction of a term system of management evaluation groups and a dedicated evaluation institution should be considered for the accumulation of evaluation capability and the reinforcement of consistency and expertise as excessive changes in the composition of management evaluation groups, as in 2013, may hinder the expertise of evaluation including through inconsistency in evaluation criteria, etc.
With regard to "target and type of management evaluation," management performance evaluation led by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance should be considered in cases of non-classified public institutions that require management supervision of the government considering their strong public character, size of assets, and scale of financial support by the government. Moreover, among management evaluation types, a more detailed categorization of evaluation type based on capacity within Public Corporation I and II was proposed, as Public Corporation II shows that public corporations of different sizes and natures are evaluated based on the same evaluation criteria. Such "capacity-based" categorization will ensure re-categorization based on the nature and size of institutions without compromising the existing categorization system and standards as it is the same method as the categorization of quasi-governmental agencies.
With regard to "evaluation criteria," designing evaluation criteria for the categories of Public Corporation I and II and fund management-based and commission-service-based quasi-governmental agencies in a way that the proportion of non-quantitative indicators is high should be considered. This would reflect the characteristics of institutions and diverse natures of projects more properly. Designing the evaluation criteria of
micro agencies in a way where the proportion of quantitative indicators, which are relatively easy to handle, is high to relieve their burden should also be considered. Furthermore, in measuring financial performance indicators, it is not appropriate to interpret the increase of debt of public institutions caused by government projects based on the government's policy decisions in the same way as management failure or lax management. However, it was identified that as there are no explicit regulations on the definition and scope of government policy projects conducted by public corporations, there are many cases where management evaluation is conducted on government policy projects without consistent standards. Therefore, it is necessary to consider factors based on government policy projects. To this end, an improvement plan with a clear concept and scope of government policy projects and an accurate verification of calculations in segment accounting of public institutions were proposed.
Regarding "other system operations," as an evaluation system for a one-year cycle may induce public institutions to focus more on short-term performance instead of mid-/long-term objectives, the current evaluation cycle and reporting cycle (1 year) should be maintained and performance indicators to evaluate mid-/long-term performance should be added in a complementary manner. Moreover, as it was identified that there is a heavy burden on the relevant divisions of the evaluated institution including business paralysis due to an increased workload or organizational conflicts during the evaluation preparation period, introducing a standard template by developing a manual on reporting online including through an "
All Public Information in One" or building an electronic evaluation system for public institutions by referring to the integrated electronic evaluation system currently used in government performance evaluation should be considered. Moreover, it is desirable to minimize the revision of the manual as much as possible unless it is inevitable due to the designation of a new public institution or changes in the external economic environment, as it is not desirable in terms protecting credibility and may lower the acceptance of the evaluation by the evaluated institution if the government execution efforts are evaluated based on the manual revised at the end of the year just before evaluation and evaluation results are linked with bonuses, etc.